Slavery, and then abortion

[Bfgrn]

How Medicare Part D Raised US Healthcare Costs


Q. The prescription drug benefit was described as a poison pill at the time. Does it require funding?

A. More than just a poison pill, it’s a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry to increase the cost of medicine.

During the Reagan-Bush 1980s and the first years of the 1990s, in fact, Medicare was predicted to go bankrupt within fifteen years. Medicare Part D was said to have been intended to be a poison pill for the purpose of killing off Medicare. Medicare Part D was designed to deprive the government of the right to negotiate wholesale drug prices, which would deplete Medicare of over $600 billion in the next decade and hand it over to about a dozen big drug companies.

How Part D Enables Private Sector Profiteering

Under the 2003 law, prices and “formularies”—the lists of which drugs are covered according to different “tiers” of coverage—are set by the individual companies that offer Part D plans. Each company makes its own deals with drug manufacturers for discounts in the form of rebates to the companies, not the consumers. There’s little real competition among the insurers, and to the extent they are able to squeeze discounts out of the manufacturers, they go straight to their own bottom lines and not to consumers.

One of the Medicare Modernization Act’s biggest handouts to the drug industry was its reclassification of 6.2 million low-income elderly and disabled people who had been receiving drug coverage through the Medicaid program. The new law forced these people into Part D, and now the government subsidizes the same drugs at higher prices. According to the 2007 House report, that change alone stood to increase drug company profits by an estimated $2.8 billion in 2007.

In an investigation last October, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that in 2007:

• Discounts negotiated by private plans under part D reduced overall drug spending by only 8%.
• The Medicaid program, where the government buys drugs directly, cuts costs a full 26% via rebates.

And Denis Kucinich refused to vote for Obamacare calling it a sell out to insurance companies that would not solve any of the major problems with health care.

Instead, he favored a single payer system and voted against Obamacare until they needed his vote, then he inexplicably voted for it.

Denis never recanted, yet he voted for it anyway.

Welcome to Washington politics. They are a sick bunch, are they not?

The Democratic Party has moved to the right over the last 30 years. The liberals who supported single payer or at least a public option were shut out on health care reform. That should be a warning for all citizens. But there is NO ONE in today's GOP who is not owned by corporations...NONE.

 

[Votto]

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth

Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

it has become common for conservatives to say they give more to charity than liberals. Many, many conservatives have cited the book I just linked to for support.

However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:

In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.​

However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.


Read more: Debunking the Conservatives Give More to Charity Myth

Biblical charity? What do you know about Biblical charity?

Where in the Bible are we taught to give more money to the state so that the state can take care of people? Where is it advocated? Instead, we have 1 Samuel 9 given to us that warns us about wanting a king. The people of Israel demanded a king, and God warned them of the abuses that would follow if they had one. The people would not listen, so God gave them what they wanted, and the abuses soon followed. Kings provided a steady spiral downward for the nation until is dissolved.

What we have today is a system whereby people pay taxes but do their best to evade such taxes. Everyone does it and those that are able to evade taxes do so and are happy about it.

This is a vast difference from the Biblical example Jesus provides of the widow casting in her money for a tithe. She gives the least of anyone, but Jesus said that she gave the most, simply because she gave all she had. .

Then we have those who receive some of the tax money that are poor. They don't view it as a gift, rather, they view it as an entitlement. In fact, they expect more should be given.

So there you have it. What we have now are people who are robbed of the gift of giving, and as an added bonus people are robbed of the gratitude for being given help.
And the best part of all, God is left completely out of the picture to be thanked.

As for money that actually goes to the poor through the government, about 9 cents on the dollar that is given to the poor actually gets there. The vast majority of that money is like giving to the Clinton Foundation. Most of it will just be absorbed by Hillary's mortgage payment.

As far as your little study, believe what you will. I know from personal experience, as well as just seeing the various charitable organizations in action, that most are faith based. I've also seen enough studies to prove it.

How about an ABC article on the matter?

Who Gives and Who Doesn t - ABC News

No matter your views, one thing is certain and that is the notion that conservatives don't give to the poor nor care for the poor has been blown to hell.

You sir are a liar.

And you are an idiot. You are quoting the same debunked Arthur Brooks study.

Even Arthur Brooks says:

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

You sir are the idiot here.

Was this not your quote?

"The long history of conservatism is one with ZERO advocates for minorities. You can't even name ONE. Conservatives have done NOTHING for any minority, poor person or disadvantaged member of our society. Unless lynchings are considered ;doing something'..."

Even the article you cited did not agree with this statement.

As for your little pissing contest as to who gives more, go ahead and believe what you will. It makes no difference to me.

 

[Votto]

How Medicare Part D Raised US Healthcare Costs


Q. The prescription drug benefit was described as a poison pill at the time. Does it require funding?

A. More than just a poison pill, it’s a giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry to increase the cost of medicine.

During the Reagan-Bush 1980s and the first years of the 1990s, in fact, Medicare was predicted to go bankrupt within fifteen years. Medicare Part D was said to have been intended to be a poison pill for the purpose of killing off Medicare. Medicare Part D was designed to deprive the government of the right to negotiate wholesale drug prices, which would deplete Medicare of over $600 billion in the next decade and hand it over to about a dozen big drug companies.

How Part D Enables Private Sector Profiteering

Under the 2003 law, prices and “formularies”—the lists of which drugs are covered according to different “tiers” of coverage—are set by the individual companies that offer Part D plans. Each company makes its own deals with drug manufacturers for discounts in the form of rebates to the companies, not the consumers. There’s little real competition among the insurers, and to the extent they are able to squeeze discounts out of the manufacturers, they go straight to their own bottom lines and not to consumers.

One of the Medicare Modernization Act’s biggest handouts to the drug industry was its reclassification of 6.2 million low-income elderly and disabled people who had been receiving drug coverage through the Medicaid program. The new law forced these people into Part D, and now the government subsidizes the same drugs at higher prices. According to the 2007 House report, that change alone stood to increase drug company profits by an estimated $2.8 billion in 2007.

In an investigation last October, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that in 2007:

• Discounts negotiated by private plans under part D reduced overall drug spending by only 8%.
• The Medicaid program, where the government buys drugs directly, cuts costs a full 26% via rebates.

And Denis Kucinich refused to vote for Obamacare calling it a sell out to insurance companies that would not solve any of the major problems with health care.

Instead, he favored a single payer system and voted against Obamacare until they needed his vote, then he inexplicably voted for it.

Denis never recanted, yet he voted for it anyway.

Welcome to Washington politics. They are a sick bunch, are they not?

The Democratic Party has moved to the right over the last 30 years. The liberals who supported single payer or at least a public option were shut out on health care reform. That should be a warning for all citizens. But there is NO ONE in today's GOP who is not owned by corporations...NONE.

What in the hell makes those in government so much better than those in the so called private sector? Is it that the private sector focuses on turning a profit but the government runs massive deficits to try and do the same job?

Having said that, it is really harder and harder to distinguish between private and corporate these days as government and corporate America seem to be merging more and more every day. Just look at how much more involvement government has in corporate America now. Hell, even Wal Mart will not sell a confederate flag now so as to be PC. Meanwhile, a so called private business that is not a corporation is forced by the state to make a gay wedding cake while the same establishment is not required to make a Confederate flag marriage cake. They hypocrisy is astounding.

Make no mistake, both major parties are dependent upon the corporate model for their survival. It has always been this way and always will.

Corporations like Wal Mart are Obama's butt plug.

 

[Bfgrn]

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth

Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

it has become common for conservatives to say they give more to charity than liberals. Many, many conservatives have cited the book I just linked to for support.

However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:

In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.​

However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.


Read more: Debunking the Conservatives Give More to Charity Myth

Biblical charity? What do you know about Biblical charity?

Where in the Bible are we taught to give more money to the state so that the state can take care of people? Where is it advocated? Instead, we have 1 Samuel 9 given to us that warns us about wanting a king. The people of Israel demanded a king, and God warned them of the abuses that would follow if they had one. The people would not listen, so God gave them what they wanted, and the abuses soon followed. Kings provided a steady spiral downward for the nation until is dissolved.

What we have today is a system whereby people pay taxes but do their best to evade such taxes. Everyone does it and those that are able to evade taxes do so and are happy about it.

This is a vast difference from the Biblical example Jesus provides of the widow casting in her money for a tithe. She gives the least of anyone, but Jesus said that she gave the most, simply because she gave all she had. .

Then we have those who receive some of the tax money that are poor. They don't view it as a gift, rather, they view it as an entitlement. In fact, they expect more should be given.

So there you have it. What we have now are people who are robbed of the gift of giving, and as an added bonus people are robbed of the gratitude for being given help.
And the best part of all, God is left completely out of the picture to be thanked.

As for money that actually goes to the poor through the government, about 9 cents on the dollar that is given to the poor actually gets there. The vast majority of that money is like giving to the Clinton Foundation. Most of it will just be absorbed by Hillary's mortgage payment.

As far as your little study, believe what you will. I know from personal experience, as well as just seeing the various charitable organizations in action, that most are faith based. I've also seen enough studies to prove it.

How about an ABC article on the matter?

Who Gives and Who Doesn t - ABC News

No matter your views, one thing is certain and that is the notion that conservatives don't give to the poor nor care for the poor has been blown to hell.

You sir are a liar.

And you are an idiot. You are quoting the same debunked Arthur Brooks study.

Even Arthur Brooks says:

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

You sir are the idiot here.

Was this not your quote?

"The long history of conservatism is one with ZERO advocates for minorities. You can't even name ONE. Conservatives have done NOTHING for any minority, poor person or disadvantaged member of our society. Unless lynchings are considered ;doing something'..."

Even the article you cited did not agree with this statement.

As for your little pissing contest as to who gives more, go ahead and believe what you will. It makes no difference to me.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

 

[Votto]

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth

Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

it has become common for conservatives to say they give more to charity than liberals. Many, many conservatives have cited the book I just linked to for support.

However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:

In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.​

However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.


Read more: Debunking the Conservatives Give More to Charity Myth

Biblical charity? What do you know about Biblical charity?

Where in the Bible are we taught to give more money to the state so that the state can take care of people? Where is it advocated? Instead, we have 1 Samuel 9 given to us that warns us about wanting a king. The people of Israel demanded a king, and God warned them of the abuses that would follow if they had one. The people would not listen, so God gave them what they wanted, and the abuses soon followed. Kings provided a steady spiral downward for the nation until is dissolved.

What we have today is a system whereby people pay taxes but do their best to evade such taxes. Everyone does it and those that are able to evade taxes do so and are happy about it.

This is a vast difference from the Biblical example Jesus provides of the widow casting in her money for a tithe. She gives the least of anyone, but Jesus said that she gave the most, simply because she gave all she had. .

Then we have those who receive some of the tax money that are poor. They don't view it as a gift, rather, they view it as an entitlement. In fact, they expect more should be given.

So there you have it. What we have now are people who are robbed of the gift of giving, and as an added bonus people are robbed of the gratitude for being given help.
And the best part of all, God is left completely out of the picture to be thanked.

As for money that actually goes to the poor through the government, about 9 cents on the dollar that is given to the poor actually gets there. The vast majority of that money is like giving to the Clinton Foundation. Most of it will just be absorbed by Hillary's mortgage payment.

As far as your little study, believe what you will. I know from personal experience, as well as just seeing the various charitable organizations in action, that most are faith based. I've also seen enough studies to prove it.

How about an ABC article on the matter?

Who Gives and Who Doesn t - ABC News

No matter your views, one thing is certain and that is the notion that conservatives don't give to the poor nor care for the poor has been blown to hell.

You sir are a liar.

And you are an idiot. You are quoting the same debunked Arthur Brooks study.

Even Arthur Brooks says:

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

You sir are the idiot here.

Was this not your quote?

"The long history of conservatism is one with ZERO advocates for minorities. You can't even name ONE. Conservatives have done NOTHING for any minority, poor person or disadvantaged member of our society. Unless lynchings are considered ;doing something'..."

Even the article you cited did not agree with this statement.

As for your little pissing contest as to who gives more, go ahead and believe what you will. It makes no difference to me.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Actually, the history of mankind is a sordid one that involves the vast number of people who walked the earth as slaves to the state.

Democracy came from Ancient Greece where we see slavery allowing it to work. Men would sit around and debate and educate themselves on issues while their slaves took care of them.

Today, we allow the slaves to vote as they have neither the time nor education to adequately cast an informative vote. Usually people just vote for a preconceived idiotic idea about either party, like the ones you present. It is to the point that Adolf Hitler would get elected if only running for the right party.

Hell, vote for more hope and change if you wish, I could really care less.

 

[Votto]

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth

Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

it has become common for conservatives to say they give more to charity than liberals. Many, many conservatives have cited the book I just linked to for support.

However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:

In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.​

However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.


Read more: Debunking the Conservatives Give More to Charity Myth

Biblical charity? What do you know about Biblical charity?

Where in the Bible are we taught to give more money to the state so that the state can take care of people? Where is it advocated? Instead, we have 1 Samuel 9 given to us that warns us about wanting a king. The people of Israel demanded a king, and God warned them of the abuses that would follow if they had one. The people would not listen, so God gave them what they wanted, and the abuses soon followed. Kings provided a steady spiral downward for the nation until is dissolved.

What we have today is a system whereby people pay taxes but do their best to evade such taxes. Everyone does it and those that are able to evade taxes do so and are happy about it.

This is a vast difference from the Biblical example Jesus provides of the widow casting in her money for a tithe. She gives the least of anyone, but Jesus said that she gave the most, simply because she gave all she had. .

Then we have those who receive some of the tax money that are poor. They don't view it as a gift, rather, they view it as an entitlement. In fact, they expect more should be given.

So there you have it. What we have now are people who are robbed of the gift of giving, and as an added bonus people are robbed of the gratitude for being given help.
And the best part of all, God is left completely out of the picture to be thanked.

As for money that actually goes to the poor through the government, about 9 cents on the dollar that is given to the poor actually gets there. The vast majority of that money is like giving to the Clinton Foundation. Most of it will just be absorbed by Hillary's mortgage payment.

As far as your little study, believe what you will. I know from personal experience, as well as just seeing the various charitable organizations in action, that most are faith based. I've also seen enough studies to prove it.

How about an ABC article on the matter?

Who Gives and Who Doesn t - ABC News

No matter your views, one thing is certain and that is the notion that conservatives don't give to the poor nor care for the poor has been blown to hell.

You sir are a liar.

And you are an idiot. You are quoting the same debunked Arthur Brooks study.

Even Arthur Brooks says:

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

You sir are the idiot here.

Was this not your quote?

"The long history of conservatism is one with ZERO advocates for minorities. You can't even name ONE. Conservatives have done NOTHING for any minority, poor person or disadvantaged member of our society. Unless lynchings are considered ;doing something'..."

Even the article you cited did not agree with this statement.

As for your little pissing contest as to who gives more, go ahead and believe what you will. It makes no difference to me.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Actually, the history of mankind is a sordid one that involves the vast number of people who walked the earth as slaves to the state.

Democracy came from Ancient Greece where we see slavery allowing it to work. Men would sit around and debate and educate themselves on issues while their slaves took care of them.

Today, we allow the slaves to vote as they have neither the time nor education to adequately cast an informative vote. Usually people just vote for a preconceived idiotic idea about either party, like the ones you present. It is to the point that Adolf Hitler would get elected if only running for the right party.

Hell, vote for more hope and change if you wish, I could really care less.

 

[Bfgrn]

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth

Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

it has become common for conservatives to say they give more to charity than liberals. Many, many conservatives have cited the book I just linked to for support.

However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:

In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.​

However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.


Read more: Debunking the Conservatives Give More to Charity Myth

Biblical charity? What do you know about Biblical charity?

Where in the Bible are we taught to give more money to the state so that the state can take care of people? Where is it advocated? Instead, we have 1 Samuel 9 given to us that warns us about wanting a king. The people of Israel demanded a king, and God warned them of the abuses that would follow if they had one. The people would not listen, so God gave them what they wanted, and the abuses soon followed. Kings provided a steady spiral downward for the nation until is dissolved.

What we have today is a system whereby people pay taxes but do their best to evade such taxes. Everyone does it and those that are able to evade taxes do so and are happy about it.

This is a vast difference from the Biblical example Jesus provides of the widow casting in her money for a tithe. She gives the least of anyone, but Jesus said that she gave the most, simply because she gave all she had. .

Then we have those who receive some of the tax money that are poor. They don't view it as a gift, rather, they view it as an entitlement. In fact, they expect more should be given.

So there you have it. What we have now are people who are robbed of the gift of giving, and as an added bonus people are robbed of the gratitude for being given help.
And the best part of all, God is left completely out of the picture to be thanked.

As for money that actually goes to the poor through the government, about 9 cents on the dollar that is given to the poor actually gets there. The vast majority of that money is like giving to the Clinton Foundation. Most of it will just be absorbed by Hillary's mortgage payment.

As far as your little study, believe what you will. I know from personal experience, as well as just seeing the various charitable organizations in action, that most are faith based. I've also seen enough studies to prove it.

How about an ABC article on the matter?

Who Gives and Who Doesn t - ABC News

No matter your views, one thing is certain and that is the notion that conservatives don't give to the poor nor care for the poor has been blown to hell.

You sir are a liar.

And you are an idiot. You are quoting the same debunked Arthur Brooks study.

Even Arthur Brooks says:

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

You sir are the idiot here.

Was this not your quote?

"The long history of conservatism is one with ZERO advocates for minorities. You can't even name ONE. Conservatives have done NOTHING for any minority, poor person or disadvantaged member of our society. Unless lynchings are considered ;doing something'..."

Even the article you cited did not agree with this statement.

As for your little pissing contest as to who gives more, go ahead and believe what you will. It makes no difference to me.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Actually, the history of mankind is a sordid one that involves the vast number of people who walked the earth as slaves to the state.

Democracy came from Ancient Greece where we see slavery allowing it to work. Men would sit around and debate and educate themselves on issues while their slaves took care of them.

Today, we allow the slaves to vote as they have neither the time nor education to adequately cast an informative vote. Usually people just vote for a preconceived idiotic idea about either party, like the ones you present. It is to the point that Adolf Hitler would get elected if only running for the right party.

Hell, vote for more hope and change if you wish, I could really care less.

You are rambling. Is there a point you are trying to make? Hitler was never 'elected'. He gained power through coercion. A conservative tenet...

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

 

[Votto]

Biblical charity? What do you know about Biblical charity?

Where in the Bible are we taught to give more money to the state so that the state can take care of people? Where is it advocated? Instead, we have 1 Samuel 9 given to us that warns us about wanting a king. The people of Israel demanded a king, and God warned them of the abuses that would follow if they had one. The people would not listen, so God gave them what they wanted, and the abuses soon followed. Kings provided a steady spiral downward for the nation until is dissolved.

What we have today is a system whereby people pay taxes but do their best to evade such taxes. Everyone does it and those that are able to evade taxes do so and are happy about it.

This is a vast difference from the Biblical example Jesus provides of the widow casting in her money for a tithe. She gives the least of anyone, but Jesus said that she gave the most, simply because she gave all she had. .

Then we have those who receive some of the tax money that are poor. They don't view it as a gift, rather, they view it as an entitlement. In fact, they expect more should be given.

So there you have it. What we have now are people who are robbed of the gift of giving, and as an added bonus people are robbed of the gratitude for being given help.
And the best part of all, God is left completely out of the picture to be thanked.

As for money that actually goes to the poor through the government, about 9 cents on the dollar that is given to the poor actually gets there. The vast majority of that money is like giving to the Clinton Foundation. Most of it will just be absorbed by Hillary's mortgage payment.

As far as your little study, believe what you will. I know from personal experience, as well as just seeing the various charitable organizations in action, that most are faith based. I've also seen enough studies to prove it.

How about an ABC article on the matter?

Who Gives and Who Doesn t - ABC News

No matter your views, one thing is certain and that is the notion that conservatives don't give to the poor nor care for the poor has been blown to hell.

You sir are a liar.

And you are an idiot. You are quoting the same debunked Arthur Brooks study.

Even Arthur Brooks says:

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

You sir are the idiot here.

Was this not your quote?

"The long history of conservatism is one with ZERO advocates for minorities. You can't even name ONE. Conservatives have done NOTHING for any minority, poor person or disadvantaged member of our society. Unless lynchings are considered ;doing something'..."

Even the article you cited did not agree with this statement.

As for your little pissing contest as to who gives more, go ahead and believe what you will. It makes no difference to me.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Actually, the history of mankind is a sordid one that involves the vast number of people who walked the earth as slaves to the state.

Democracy came from Ancient Greece where we see slavery allowing it to work. Men would sit around and debate and educate themselves on issues while their slaves took care of them.

Today, we allow the slaves to vote as they have neither the time nor education to adequately cast an informative vote. Usually people just vote for a preconceived idiotic idea about either party, like the ones you present. It is to the point that Adolf Hitler would get elected if only running for the right party.

Hell, vote for more hope and change if you wish, I could really care less.

You are rambling. Is there a point you are trying to make? Hitler was never 'elected'. He gained power through coercion. A conservative tenet...

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

Oh, so conservatives hate democracy? Obama never lost a seat he did not sell. Chicago is a cesspool of Dim corruption. Any half wit knows that. Then to get elected he lies to the American people about health care stating it will not cost them anymore than they are already paying and they will be able to keep their own health care. The end result is people voting for a lie, a clear subversion of democracy. Then we have democrats in their own party trying to buy seats in states like Pennsylvania, just like they tried to buy Alan Specters seat but failed. Hell, the Dim who ran against Alan rated him out. They did not even need a conservative to point out the blatant corruption. And last, but certainly not least or even the tip of the ice burg, Hillary beat out Obama in the general election in their own party but Obama was appointed anyway.

Of course, my favorite was when Kennedy had cancer and was fighting for his life, He knew that his vote was needed to pass Obamacare, and he knew if he stepped down the GOP would try to grab his seat and stop Obamacare. So Kennedy and the democracy loving dims tried to change the laws so that that could not happen. They tried to avoid an election before the Obamacare vote. Well it did happen despite their best efforts, and the GOP put in a man who ran on the premise of stopping Obamacare and he won. You would think the voters won, but they did not. Dims then used Reconciliation to pass Obamcare in order to bypass the GOP elected representative who was put in place by voters to stop the legislation, another clear subversion of democracy.

Every election cycle Dims rise from the dead to cast votes, and you dare try to put on a self righteous air of loving democracy?

Thanks for the laugh. When it comes to coercion, Dims make Hitler blush.

 

[Bfgrn]

And you are an idiot. You are quoting the same debunked Arthur Brooks study.

Even Arthur Brooks says:

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

You sir are the idiot here.

Was this not your quote?

"The long history of conservatism is one with ZERO advocates for minorities. You can't even name ONE. Conservatives have done NOTHING for any minority, poor person or disadvantaged member of our society. Unless lynchings are considered ;doing something'..."

Even the article you cited did not agree with this statement.

As for your little pissing contest as to who gives more, go ahead and believe what you will. It makes no difference to me.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Actually, the history of mankind is a sordid one that involves the vast number of people who walked the earth as slaves to the state.

Democracy came from Ancient Greece where we see slavery allowing it to work. Men would sit around and debate and educate themselves on issues while their slaves took care of them.

Today, we allow the slaves to vote as they have neither the time nor education to adequately cast an informative vote. Usually people just vote for a preconceived idiotic idea about either party, like the ones you present. It is to the point that Adolf Hitler would get elected if only running for the right party.

Hell, vote for more hope and change if you wish, I could really care less.

You are rambling. Is there a point you are trying to make? Hitler was never 'elected'. He gained power through coercion. A conservative tenet...

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

Oh, so conservatives hate democracy? Obama never lost a seat he did not sell. Chicago is a cesspool of Dim corruption. Any half wit knows that. Then to get elected he lies to the American people about health care stating it will not cost them anymore than they are already paying and they will be able to keep their own health care. The end result is people voting for a lie, a clear subversion of democracy. Then we have democrats in their own party trying to buy seats in states like Pennsylvania, just like they tried to buy Alan Specters seat but failed. Hell, the Dim who ran against Alan rated him out. They did not even need a conservative to point out the blatant corruption. And last, but certainly not least or even the tip of the ice burg, Hillary beat out Obama in the general election in their own party but Obama was appointed anyway.

Of course, my favorite was when Kennedy had cancer and was fighting for his life, He knew that his vote was needed to pass Obamacare, and he knew if he stepped down the GOP would try to grab his seat and stop Obamacare. So Kennedy and the democracy loving dims tried to change the laws so that that could not happen. They tried to avoid an election before the Obamacare vote. Well it did happen despite their best efforts, and the GOP put in a man who ran on the premise of stopping Obamacare and he won. You would think the voters won, but they did not. Dims then used Reconciliation to pass Obamcare in order to bypass the GOP elected representative who was put in place by voters to stop the legislation, another clear subversion of democracy.

Every election cycle Dims rise from the dead to cast votes, and you dare try to put on a self righteous air of loving democracy?

Thanks for the laugh. When it comes to coercion, Dims make Hitler blush.

Yea, Republicans fought against the health care bill the Heritage Foundation designed for Republicans in 1993 to fight Hillarycare. And they used coercion, obstructionism, and insurgency to fight the ACA for PURELY political purposes. They had ZERO concern for We, the People.

The ACA is not perfect, and it is not what liberals wanted, but there is no doubt it is a major improvement over the status quo it replaced.

When obstructionism prevents reforms and legislation that were part of your own Republican agenda, it becomes a form of domestic terrorism IMO.

Republicans were well aware that health care reform was paramount to repairing our economy and protecting the financial security of American families. McCain, and Republicans ALSO ran on promising health care reforms.

But Republicans made a conscious and collective decision to block and undermine any reform. Because it would be seen as a success for our President.

David Frum, the Republican and former economic speechwriter for George W. Bush was fired by the American Enterprise Institute for writing this op-ed, a right wing think tank whose 'scholars' ironically were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Waterloo
by David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final irony:
The health care bill Obama and Democrats passed was not the reform liberals and progressives sought. It was and IS a carbon copy of the Republican bills proposed by Senator John Chafee, (R-R.I) and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole in the early 1990's. Including the conservative idea...the individual mandate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The truth of the matter is you folks on the right want nothing but failure for ANYTHING that is attached to Obama or Democrats. Even a health care law that is almost 100% conservative based in design.

You will stoop to any level, including 'insurgency'...

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex


"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

 

[Roadrunner]

Could the black population just disappear at this rate?

No, but it does postpone the Democratic Party Dictatorship.

 

[Roadrunner]

Debunking the "Conservatives Give More to Charity" Myth

Since the publication of Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism

it has become common for conservatives to say they give more to charity than liberals. Many, many conservatives have cited the book I just linked to for support.

However, that book is just wrong. A recent MIT study countered it finding:

In this paper, we first show that conservatives and liberals are equally generous in their donation habits. This pattern holds at both the individual and state level, and contradicts the conventional wisdom that partisans differ in their generosity. Second, we show that while levels of giving are roughly equivalent, liberals are much more likely to donate to secular organizations, and conservatives are more likely to donate to religious causes, especially their own congregation.​

However, there is another issue to address which is: what to count as charity? All of these studies use the IRS definition of "charity" rather than the biblical definition. In the bible, God defines charity as giving to the needy without receiving, or expecting to receive, anything in return. Most "charity" conservatives give is in the form of tithes to their church. The vast majority of that money goes to salaries and building expenses -- for people and buildings that provide the giver with services. A tiny, miniscule fraction goes to the poor and needy.

So, in actuality, it seems that liberals give quite a bit more to biblical charity than conservatives.


Read more: Debunking the Conservatives Give More to Charity Myth

Biblical charity? What do you know about Biblical charity?

Where in the Bible are we taught to give more money to the state so that the state can take care of people? Where is it advocated? Instead, we have 1 Samuel 9 given to us that warns us about wanting a king. The people of Israel demanded a king, and God warned them of the abuses that would follow if they had one. The people would not listen, so God gave them what they wanted, and the abuses soon followed. Kings provided a steady spiral downward for the nation until is dissolved.

What we have today is a system whereby people pay taxes but do their best to evade such taxes. Everyone does it and those that are able to evade taxes do so and are happy about it.

This is a vast difference from the Biblical example Jesus provides of the widow casting in her money for a tithe. She gives the least of anyone, but Jesus said that she gave the most, simply because she gave all she had. .

Then we have those who receive some of the tax money that are poor. They don't view it as a gift, rather, they view it as an entitlement. In fact, they expect more should be given.

So there you have it. What we have now are people who are robbed of the gift of giving, and as an added bonus people are robbed of the gratitude for being given help.
And the best part of all, God is left completely out of the picture to be thanked.

As for money that actually goes to the poor through the government, about 9 cents on the dollar that is given to the poor actually gets there. The vast majority of that money is like giving to the Clinton Foundation. Most of it will just be absorbed by Hillary's mortgage payment.

As far as your little study, believe what you will. I know from personal experience, as well as just seeing the various charitable organizations in action, that most are faith based. I've also seen enough studies to prove it.

How about an ABC article on the matter?

Who Gives and Who Doesn t - ABC News

No matter your views, one thing is certain and that is the notion that conservatives don't give to the poor nor care for the poor has been blown to hell.

You sir are a liar.

And you are an idiot. You are quoting the same debunked Arthur Brooks study.

Even Arthur Brooks says:

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money each year than liberal people, but a percentage point or so less likely to volunteer [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.

You sir are the idiot here.

Was this not your quote?

"The long history of conservatism is one with ZERO advocates for minorities. You can't even name ONE. Conservatives have done NOTHING for any minority, poor person or disadvantaged member of our society. Unless lynchings are considered ;doing something'..."

Even the article you cited did not agree with this statement.

As for your little pissing contest as to who gives more, go ahead and believe what you will. It makes no difference to me.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

No it is has been a struggle between people who build things and create stable societies, and savages who want to kill them and take their stuff.

 

[Votto]

You sir are the idiot here.

Was this not your quote?

"The long history of conservatism is one with ZERO advocates for minorities. You can't even name ONE. Conservatives have done NOTHING for any minority, poor person or disadvantaged member of our society. Unless lynchings are considered ;doing something'..."

Even the article you cited did not agree with this statement.

As for your little pissing contest as to who gives more, go ahead and believe what you will. It makes no difference to me.

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Actually, the history of mankind is a sordid one that involves the vast number of people who walked the earth as slaves to the state.

Democracy came from Ancient Greece where we see slavery allowing it to work. Men would sit around and debate and educate themselves on issues while their slaves took care of them.

Today, we allow the slaves to vote as they have neither the time nor education to adequately cast an informative vote. Usually people just vote for a preconceived idiotic idea about either party, like the ones you present. It is to the point that Adolf Hitler would get elected if only running for the right party.

Hell, vote for more hope and change if you wish, I could really care less.

You are rambling. Is there a point you are trying to make? Hitler was never 'elected'. He gained power through coercion. A conservative tenet...

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

Oh, so conservatives hate democracy? Obama never lost a seat he did not sell. Chicago is a cesspool of Dim corruption. Any half wit knows that. Then to get elected he lies to the American people about health care stating it will not cost them anymore than they are already paying and they will be able to keep their own health care. The end result is people voting for a lie, a clear subversion of democracy. Then we have democrats in their own party trying to buy seats in states like Pennsylvania, just like they tried to buy Alan Specters seat but failed. Hell, the Dim who ran against Alan rated him out. They did not even need a conservative to point out the blatant corruption. And last, but certainly not least or even the tip of the ice burg, Hillary beat out Obama in the general election in their own party but Obama was appointed anyway.

Of course, my favorite was when Kennedy had cancer and was fighting for his life, He knew that his vote was needed to pass Obamacare, and he knew if he stepped down the GOP would try to grab his seat and stop Obamacare. So Kennedy and the democracy loving dims tried to change the laws so that that could not happen. They tried to avoid an election before the Obamacare vote. Well it did happen despite their best efforts, and the GOP put in a man who ran on the premise of stopping Obamacare and he won. You would think the voters won, but they did not. Dims then used Reconciliation to pass Obamcare in order to bypass the GOP elected representative who was put in place by voters to stop the legislation, another clear subversion of democracy.

Every election cycle Dims rise from the dead to cast votes, and you dare try to put on a self righteous air of loving democracy?

Thanks for the laugh. When it comes to coercion, Dims make Hitler blush.

Yea, Republicans fought against the health care bill the Heritage Foundation designed for Republicans in 1993 to fight Hillarycare. And they used coercion, obstructionism, and insurgency to fight the ACA for PURELY political purposes. They had ZERO concern for We, the People.

The ACA is not perfect, and it is not what liberals wanted, but there is no doubt it is a major improvement over the status quo it replaced.

When obstructionism prevents reforms and legislation that were part of your own Republican agenda, it becomes a form of domestic terrorism IMO.

Republicans were well aware that health care reform was paramount to repairing our economy and protecting the financial security of American families. McCain, and Republicans ALSO ran on promising health care reforms.

But Republicans made a conscious and collective decision to block and undermine any reform. Because it would be seen as a success for our President.

David Frum, the Republican and former economic speechwriter for George W. Bush was fired by the American Enterprise Institute for writing this op-ed, a right wing think tank whose 'scholars' ironically were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Waterloo
by David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final irony:
The health care bill Obama and Democrats passed was not the reform liberals and progressives sought. It was and IS a carbon copy of the Republican bills proposed by Senator John Chafee, (R-R.I) and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole in the early 1990's. Including the conservative idea...the individual mandate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The truth of the matter is you folks on the right want nothing but failure for ANYTHING that is attached to Obama or Democrats. Even a health care law that is almost 100% conservative based in design.

You will stoop to any level, including 'insurgency'...

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex


"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

I have no interest in defending the GOP. Had the GOP wanted to stop Obamacare, they could have. All they had to do was not fund it, but they did.

And as you point out, the GOP came up with this crap, just like Romneycare.

So instead of showing that there are no real differences between the party's you come up with this crap about the GOP being the Taliban. Well if they are the Taliban, then I suppose Dims are Al Qaeda. I could actually agree with both statements.

Again, there is no difference here between the two partys other than mindless vitriol and demagoguery you take hook, line, and sinker.

This video is the truth about Obamacare. Progs admitted that they had to lie to get this passed a few years before they actually did.

 

[Bfgrn]

The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Actually, the history of mankind is a sordid one that involves the vast number of people who walked the earth as slaves to the state.

Democracy came from Ancient Greece where we see slavery allowing it to work. Men would sit around and debate and educate themselves on issues while their slaves took care of them.

Today, we allow the slaves to vote as they have neither the time nor education to adequately cast an informative vote. Usually people just vote for a preconceived idiotic idea about either party, like the ones you present. It is to the point that Adolf Hitler would get elected if only running for the right party.

Hell, vote for more hope and change if you wish, I could really care less.

You are rambling. Is there a point you are trying to make? Hitler was never 'elected'. He gained power through coercion. A conservative tenet...

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

Oh, so conservatives hate democracy? Obama never lost a seat he did not sell. Chicago is a cesspool of Dim corruption. Any half wit knows that. Then to get elected he lies to the American people about health care stating it will not cost them anymore than they are already paying and they will be able to keep their own health care. The end result is people voting for a lie, a clear subversion of democracy. Then we have democrats in their own party trying to buy seats in states like Pennsylvania, just like they tried to buy Alan Specters seat but failed. Hell, the Dim who ran against Alan rated him out. They did not even need a conservative to point out the blatant corruption. And last, but certainly not least or even the tip of the ice burg, Hillary beat out Obama in the general election in their own party but Obama was appointed anyway.

Of course, my favorite was when Kennedy had cancer and was fighting for his life, He knew that his vote was needed to pass Obamacare, and he knew if he stepped down the GOP would try to grab his seat and stop Obamacare. So Kennedy and the democracy loving dims tried to change the laws so that that could not happen. They tried to avoid an election before the Obamacare vote. Well it did happen despite their best efforts, and the GOP put in a man who ran on the premise of stopping Obamacare and he won. You would think the voters won, but they did not. Dims then used Reconciliation to pass Obamcare in order to bypass the GOP elected representative who was put in place by voters to stop the legislation, another clear subversion of democracy.

Every election cycle Dims rise from the dead to cast votes, and you dare try to put on a self righteous air of loving democracy?

Thanks for the laugh. When it comes to coercion, Dims make Hitler blush.

Yea, Republicans fought against the health care bill the Heritage Foundation designed for Republicans in 1993 to fight Hillarycare. And they used coercion, obstructionism, and insurgency to fight the ACA for PURELY political purposes. They had ZERO concern for We, the People.

The ACA is not perfect, and it is not what liberals wanted, but there is no doubt it is a major improvement over the status quo it replaced.

When obstructionism prevents reforms and legislation that were part of your own Republican agenda, it becomes a form of domestic terrorism IMO.

Republicans were well aware that health care reform was paramount to repairing our economy and protecting the financial security of American families. McCain, and Republicans ALSO ran on promising health care reforms.

But Republicans made a conscious and collective decision to block and undermine any reform. Because it would be seen as a success for our President.

David Frum, the Republican and former economic speechwriter for George W. Bush was fired by the American Enterprise Institute for writing this op-ed, a right wing think tank whose 'scholars' ironically were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Waterloo
by David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final irony:
The health care bill Obama and Democrats passed was not the reform liberals and progressives sought. It was and IS a carbon copy of the Republican bills proposed by Senator John Chafee, (R-R.I) and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole in the early 1990's. Including the conservative idea...the individual mandate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The truth of the matter is you folks on the right want nothing but failure for ANYTHING that is attached to Obama or Democrats. Even a health care law that is almost 100% conservative based in design.

You will stoop to any level, including 'insurgency'...

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex


"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

I have no interest in defending the GOP. Had the GOP wanted to stop Obamacare, they could have. All they had to do was not fund it, but they did.

And as you point out, the GOP came up with this crap, just like Romneycare.

So instead of showing that there are no real differences between the party's you come up with this crap about the GOP being the Taliban. Well if they are the Taliban, then I suppose Dims are Al Qaeda. I could actually agree with both statements.

Again, there is no difference here between the two partys other than mindless vitriol and demagoguery you take hook, line, and sinker.

This video is the truth about Obamacare. Progs admitted that they had to lie to get this passed a few years before they actually did.

So what is your solution Einstein?

 

[Votto]

Actually, the history of mankind is a sordid one that involves the vast number of people who walked the earth as slaves to the state.

Democracy came from Ancient Greece where we see slavery allowing it to work. Men would sit around and debate and educate themselves on issues while their slaves took care of them.

Today, we allow the slaves to vote as they have neither the time nor education to adequately cast an informative vote. Usually people just vote for a preconceived idiotic idea about either party, like the ones you present. It is to the point that Adolf Hitler would get elected if only running for the right party.

Hell, vote for more hope and change if you wish, I could really care less.

You are rambling. Is there a point you are trying to make? Hitler was never 'elected'. He gained power through coercion. A conservative tenet...

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

Oh, so conservatives hate democracy? Obama never lost a seat he did not sell. Chicago is a cesspool of Dim corruption. Any half wit knows that. Then to get elected he lies to the American people about health care stating it will not cost them anymore than they are already paying and they will be able to keep their own health care. The end result is people voting for a lie, a clear subversion of democracy. Then we have democrats in their own party trying to buy seats in states like Pennsylvania, just like they tried to buy Alan Specters seat but failed. Hell, the Dim who ran against Alan rated him out. They did not even need a conservative to point out the blatant corruption. And last, but certainly not least or even the tip of the ice burg, Hillary beat out Obama in the general election in their own party but Obama was appointed anyway.

Of course, my favorite was when Kennedy had cancer and was fighting for his life, He knew that his vote was needed to pass Obamacare, and he knew if he stepped down the GOP would try to grab his seat and stop Obamacare. So Kennedy and the democracy loving dims tried to change the laws so that that could not happen. They tried to avoid an election before the Obamacare vote. Well it did happen despite their best efforts, and the GOP put in a man who ran on the premise of stopping Obamacare and he won. You would think the voters won, but they did not. Dims then used Reconciliation to pass Obamcare in order to bypass the GOP elected representative who was put in place by voters to stop the legislation, another clear subversion of democracy.

Every election cycle Dims rise from the dead to cast votes, and you dare try to put on a self righteous air of loving democracy?

Thanks for the laugh. When it comes to coercion, Dims make Hitler blush.

Yea, Republicans fought against the health care bill the Heritage Foundation designed for Republicans in 1993 to fight Hillarycare. And they used coercion, obstructionism, and insurgency to fight the ACA for PURELY political purposes. They had ZERO concern for We, the People.

The ACA is not perfect, and it is not what liberals wanted, but there is no doubt it is a major improvement over the status quo it replaced.

When obstructionism prevents reforms and legislation that were part of your own Republican agenda, it becomes a form of domestic terrorism IMO.

Republicans were well aware that health care reform was paramount to repairing our economy and protecting the financial security of American families. McCain, and Republicans ALSO ran on promising health care reforms.

But Republicans made a conscious and collective decision to block and undermine any reform. Because it would be seen as a success for our President.

David Frum, the Republican and former economic speechwriter for George W. Bush was fired by the American Enterprise Institute for writing this op-ed, a right wing think tank whose 'scholars' ironically were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Waterloo
by David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final irony:
The health care bill Obama and Democrats passed was not the reform liberals and progressives sought. It was and IS a carbon copy of the Republican bills proposed by Senator John Chafee, (R-R.I) and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole in the early 1990's. Including the conservative idea...the individual mandate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The truth of the matter is you folks on the right want nothing but failure for ANYTHING that is attached to Obama or Democrats. Even a health care law that is almost 100% conservative based in design.

You will stoop to any level, including 'insurgency'...

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex


"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

I have no interest in defending the GOP. Had the GOP wanted to stop Obamacare, they could have. All they had to do was not fund it, but they did.

And as you point out, the GOP came up with this crap, just like Romneycare.

So instead of showing that there are no real differences between the party's you come up with this crap about the GOP being the Taliban. Well if they are the Taliban, then I suppose Dims are Al Qaeda. I could actually agree with both statements.

Again, there is no difference here between the two partys other than mindless vitriol and demagoguery you take hook, line, and sinker.

This video is the truth about Obamacare. Progs admitted that they had to lie to get this passed a few years before they actually did.

So what is your solution Einstein?

Support the Article V movement. States, like MA and Romneycare, should take care of their own health insurance needs. They did just fine without Obama.

That way, we have 50 examples of what may or may not work vs. ideas that are so wonderful they are compulsory for all.

 

[Bfgrn]

You are rambling. Is there a point you are trying to make? Hitler was never 'elected'. He gained power through coercion. A conservative tenet...

"In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

Oh, so conservatives hate democracy? Obama never lost a seat he did not sell. Chicago is a cesspool of Dim corruption. Any half wit knows that. Then to get elected he lies to the American people about health care stating it will not cost them anymore than they are already paying and they will be able to keep their own health care. The end result is people voting for a lie, a clear subversion of democracy. Then we have democrats in their own party trying to buy seats in states like Pennsylvania, just like they tried to buy Alan Specters seat but failed. Hell, the Dim who ran against Alan rated him out. They did not even need a conservative to point out the blatant corruption. And last, but certainly not least or even the tip of the ice burg, Hillary beat out Obama in the general election in their own party but Obama was appointed anyway.

Of course, my favorite was when Kennedy had cancer and was fighting for his life, He knew that his vote was needed to pass Obamacare, and he knew if he stepped down the GOP would try to grab his seat and stop Obamacare. So Kennedy and the democracy loving dims tried to change the laws so that that could not happen. They tried to avoid an election before the Obamacare vote. Well it did happen despite their best efforts, and the GOP put in a man who ran on the premise of stopping Obamacare and he won. You would think the voters won, but they did not. Dims then used Reconciliation to pass Obamcare in order to bypass the GOP elected representative who was put in place by voters to stop the legislation, another clear subversion of democracy.

Every election cycle Dims rise from the dead to cast votes, and you dare try to put on a self righteous air of loving democracy?

Thanks for the laugh. When it comes to coercion, Dims make Hitler blush.

Yea, Republicans fought against the health care bill the Heritage Foundation designed for Republicans in 1993 to fight Hillarycare. And they used coercion, obstructionism, and insurgency to fight the ACA for PURELY political purposes. They had ZERO concern for We, the People.

The ACA is not perfect, and it is not what liberals wanted, but there is no doubt it is a major improvement over the status quo it replaced.

When obstructionism prevents reforms and legislation that were part of your own Republican agenda, it becomes a form of domestic terrorism IMO.

Republicans were well aware that health care reform was paramount to repairing our economy and protecting the financial security of American families. McCain, and Republicans ALSO ran on promising health care reforms.

But Republicans made a conscious and collective decision to block and undermine any reform. Because it would be seen as a success for our President.

David Frum, the Republican and former economic speechwriter for George W. Bush was fired by the American Enterprise Institute for writing this op-ed, a right wing think tank whose 'scholars' ironically were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Waterloo
by David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final irony:
The health care bill Obama and Democrats passed was not the reform liberals and progressives sought. It was and IS a carbon copy of the Republican bills proposed by Senator John Chafee, (R-R.I) and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole in the early 1990's. Including the conservative idea...the individual mandate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The truth of the matter is you folks on the right want nothing but failure for ANYTHING that is attached to Obama or Democrats. Even a health care law that is almost 100% conservative based in design.

You will stoop to any level, including 'insurgency'...

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex


"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

I have no interest in defending the GOP. Had the GOP wanted to stop Obamacare, they could have. All they had to do was not fund it, but they did.

And as you point out, the GOP came up with this crap, just like Romneycare.

So instead of showing that there are no real differences between the party's you come up with this crap about the GOP being the Taliban. Well if they are the Taliban, then I suppose Dims are Al Qaeda. I could actually agree with both statements.

Again, there is no difference here between the two partys other than mindless vitriol and demagoguery you take hook, line, and sinker.

This video is the truth about Obamacare. Progs admitted that they had to lie to get this passed a few years before they actually did.

So what is your solution Einstein?

Support the Article V movement. States, like MA and Romneycare, should take care of their own health insurance needs. They did just fine without Obama.

That way, we have 50 examples of what may or may not work vs. ideas that are so wonderful they are compulsory for all.

Gee, maybe we could bring back the Articles of Confederation to replace the Constitution and Bill of Rights too!

 

[Votto]

Oh, so conservatives hate democracy? Obama never lost a seat he did not sell. Chicago is a cesspool of Dim corruption. Any half wit knows that. Then to get elected he lies to the American people about health care stating it will not cost them anymore than they are already paying and they will be able to keep their own health care. The end result is people voting for a lie, a clear subversion of democracy. Then we have democrats in their own party trying to buy seats in states like Pennsylvania, just like they tried to buy Alan Specters seat but failed. Hell, the Dim who ran against Alan rated him out. They did not even need a conservative to point out the blatant corruption. And last, but certainly not least or even the tip of the ice burg, Hillary beat out Obama in the general election in their own party but Obama was appointed anyway.

Of course, my favorite was when Kennedy had cancer and was fighting for his life, He knew that his vote was needed to pass Obamacare, and he knew if he stepped down the GOP would try to grab his seat and stop Obamacare. So Kennedy and the democracy loving dims tried to change the laws so that that could not happen. They tried to avoid an election before the Obamacare vote. Well it did happen despite their best efforts, and the GOP put in a man who ran on the premise of stopping Obamacare and he won. You would think the voters won, but they did not. Dims then used Reconciliation to pass Obamcare in order to bypass the GOP elected representative who was put in place by voters to stop the legislation, another clear subversion of democracy.

Every election cycle Dims rise from the dead to cast votes, and you dare try to put on a self righteous air of loving democracy?

Thanks for the laugh. When it comes to coercion, Dims make Hitler blush.

Yea, Republicans fought against the health care bill the Heritage Foundation designed for Republicans in 1993 to fight Hillarycare. And they used coercion, obstructionism, and insurgency to fight the ACA for PURELY political purposes. They had ZERO concern for We, the People.

The ACA is not perfect, and it is not what liberals wanted, but there is no doubt it is a major improvement over the status quo it replaced.

When obstructionism prevents reforms and legislation that were part of your own Republican agenda, it becomes a form of domestic terrorism IMO.

Republicans were well aware that health care reform was paramount to repairing our economy and protecting the financial security of American families. McCain, and Republicans ALSO ran on promising health care reforms.

But Republicans made a conscious and collective decision to block and undermine any reform. Because it would be seen as a success for our President.

David Frum, the Republican and former economic speechwriter for George W. Bush was fired by the American Enterprise Institute for writing this op-ed, a right wing think tank whose 'scholars' ironically were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Waterloo
by David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final irony:
The health care bill Obama and Democrats passed was not the reform liberals and progressives sought. It was and IS a carbon copy of the Republican bills proposed by Senator John Chafee, (R-R.I) and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole in the early 1990's. Including the conservative idea...the individual mandate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The truth of the matter is you folks on the right want nothing but failure for ANYTHING that is attached to Obama or Democrats. Even a health care law that is almost 100% conservative based in design.

You will stoop to any level, including 'insurgency'...

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex


"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

I have no interest in defending the GOP. Had the GOP wanted to stop Obamacare, they could have. All they had to do was not fund it, but they did.

And as you point out, the GOP came up with this crap, just like Romneycare.

So instead of showing that there are no real differences between the party's you come up with this crap about the GOP being the Taliban. Well if they are the Taliban, then I suppose Dims are Al Qaeda. I could actually agree with both statements.

Again, there is no difference here between the two partys other than mindless vitriol and demagoguery you take hook, line, and sinker.

This video is the truth about Obamacare. Progs admitted that they had to lie to get this passed a few years before they actually did.

So what is your solution Einstein?

Support the Article V movement. States, like MA and Romneycare, should take care of their own health insurance needs. They did just fine without Obama.

That way, we have 50 examples of what may or may not work vs. ideas that are so wonderful they are compulsory for all.

Gee, maybe we could bring back the Articles of Confederation to replace the Constitution and Bill of Rights too!

I realize that anything short of a centralized fascist state is considered by people like you to be anarchy.

The nation was founded on the premise of a limited government and Federalism.

Do you mock those goals as well?

 

[Bfgrn]

Yea, Republicans fought against the health care bill the Heritage Foundation designed for Republicans in 1993 to fight Hillarycare. And they used coercion, obstructionism, and insurgency to fight the ACA for PURELY political purposes. They had ZERO concern for We, the People.

The ACA is not perfect, and it is not what liberals wanted, but there is no doubt it is a major improvement over the status quo it replaced.

When obstructionism prevents reforms and legislation that were part of your own Republican agenda, it becomes a form of domestic terrorism IMO.

Republicans were well aware that health care reform was paramount to repairing our economy and protecting the financial security of American families. McCain, and Republicans ALSO ran on promising health care reforms.

But Republicans made a conscious and collective decision to block and undermine any reform. Because it would be seen as a success for our President.

David Frum, the Republican and former economic speechwriter for George W. Bush was fired by the American Enterprise Institute for writing this op-ed, a right wing think tank whose 'scholars' ironically were ordered not to speak to the media on the subject of health care reform, because they agreed with too much of what Obama was trying to do.

Waterloo
by David Frum

At the beginning of this process we made a strategic decision: unlike, say, Democrats in 2001 when President Bush proposed his first tax cut, we would make no deal with the administration. No negotiations, no compromise, nothing. We were going for all the marbles. This would be Obama’s Waterloo – just as healthcare was Clinton’s in 1994.

This time, when we went for all the marbles, we ended with none.

Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final irony:
The health care bill Obama and Democrats passed was not the reform liberals and progressives sought. It was and IS a carbon copy of the Republican bills proposed by Senator John Chafee, (R-R.I) and Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole in the early 1990's. Including the conservative idea...the individual mandate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The truth of the matter is you folks on the right want nothing but failure for ANYTHING that is attached to Obama or Democrats. Even a health care law that is almost 100% conservative based in design.

You will stoop to any level, including 'insurgency'...

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency

"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex


"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

I have no interest in defending the GOP. Had the GOP wanted to stop Obamacare, they could have. All they had to do was not fund it, but they did.

And as you point out, the GOP came up with this crap, just like Romneycare.

So instead of showing that there are no real differences between the party's you come up with this crap about the GOP being the Taliban. Well if they are the Taliban, then I suppose Dims are Al Qaeda. I could actually agree with both statements.

Again, there is no difference here between the two partys other than mindless vitriol and demagoguery you take hook, line, and sinker.

This video is the truth about Obamacare. Progs admitted that they had to lie to get this passed a few years before they actually did.

So what is your solution Einstein?

Support the Article V movement. States, like MA and Romneycare, should take care of their own health insurance needs. They did just fine without Obama.

That way, we have 50 examples of what may or may not work vs. ideas that are so wonderful they are compulsory for all.

Gee, maybe we could bring back the Articles of Confederation to replace the Constitution and Bill of Rights too!

I realize that anything short of a centralized fascist state is considered by people like you to be anarchy.

The nation was founded on the premise of a limited government and Federalism.

Do you mock those goals as well?

How does your vision of 'limited government' differ from anarchy?

"Federalism" replaced the Articles of Confederation.

You right wing turds always fall back on this same mindless bullshit.

Let's deal with FACTS...

 

[Votto]

I have no interest in defending the GOP. Had the GOP wanted to stop Obamacare, they could have. All they had to do was not fund it, but they did.

And as you point out, the GOP came up with this crap, just like Romneycare.

So instead of showing that there are no real differences between the party's you come up with this crap about the GOP being the Taliban. Well if they are the Taliban, then I suppose Dims are Al Qaeda. I could actually agree with both statements.

Again, there is no difference here between the two partys other than mindless vitriol and demagoguery you take hook, line, and sinker.

This video is the truth about Obamacare. Progs admitted that they had to lie to get this passed a few years before they actually did.

So what is your solution Einstein?

Support the Article V movement. States, like MA and Romneycare, should take care of their own health insurance needs. They did just fine without Obama.

That way, we have 50 examples of what may or may not work vs. ideas that are so wonderful they are compulsory for all.

Gee, maybe we could bring back the Articles of Confederation to replace the Constitution and Bill of Rights too!

I realize that anything short of a centralized fascist state is considered by people like you to be anarchy.

The nation was founded on the premise of a limited government and Federalism.

Do you mock those goals as well?

How does your vision of 'limited government' differ from anarchy?

"Federalism" replaced the Articles of Confederation.

You right wing turds always fall back on this same mindless bullshit.

Let's deal with FACTS...

I am still awaiting a response. What does limited government mean to you and is it still important today?

Progs amended the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century. Why did they amend it? It was because SCOTUS struck down federal income tax laws at the turn of the 20th century, so they had to add it, among other provisions. On top of that, they created the Fed, which is essentially a centralized bank that a whole list of Founding Fathers warned us against.

Once empowered with all that money and power, they did nothing to curtail spending and now we are seeing the results. Now states do the bidding of the federal government or loose all those federal dollars that they have become dependent upon.

Federalism is dead. The Feds run things now.

And within the federal government, the Executive branch keeps getting more powerful. Now there are a whole army of unelected bureaucrats passing regulations that amount to laws being passed without the Legislative branch. Obama passes Executive Orders to protect illegal immigrants who by the laws on the books should be deported etc.. Now states are being sued by the Federal government for trying to execute federal immigration laws on the books that Obama refuses to uphold.

I have no desire to vote for a tyrant, no matter if it comes from the royal Bush or Clinton family line.

 

[Bfgrn]

So what is your solution Einstein?

Support the Article V movement. States, like MA and Romneycare, should take care of their own health insurance needs. They did just fine without Obama.

That way, we have 50 examples of what may or may not work vs. ideas that are so wonderful they are compulsory for all.

Gee, maybe we could bring back the Articles of Confederation to replace the Constitution and Bill of Rights too!

I realize that anything short of a centralized fascist state is considered by people like you to be anarchy.

The nation was founded on the premise of a limited government and Federalism.

Do you mock those goals as well?

How does your vision of 'limited government' differ from anarchy?

"Federalism" replaced the Articles of Confederation.

You right wing turds always fall back on this same mindless bullshit.

Let's deal with FACTS...

I am still awaiting a response. What does limited government mean to you and is it still important today?

Progs amended the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century. Why did they amend it? It was because SCOTUS struck down federal income tax laws at the turn of the 20th century, so they had to add it, among other provisions. On top of that, they created the Fed, which is essentially a centralized bank that a whole list of Founding Fathers warned us against.

Once empowered with all that money and power, they did nothing to curtail spending and now we are seeing the results. Now states do the bidding of the federal government or loose all those federal dollars that they have become dependent upon.

Federalism is dead. The Feds run things now.

And within the federal government, the Executive branch keeps getting more powerful. Now there are a whole army of unelected bureaucrats passing regulations that amount to laws being passed without the Legislative branch. Obama passes Executive Orders to protect illegal immigrants who by the laws on the books should be deported etc.. Now states are being sued by the Federal government for trying to execute federal immigration laws on the books that Obama refuses to uphold.

I have no desire to vote for a tyrant, no matter if it comes from the royal Bush or Clinton family line.

Yea, let's go back to raising revenue through taxes of goods so taxes fall heavily on working Americans, who spent a much higher percentage of their income on goods than rich people. No better way for you right wingers to create your beloved plutocracy.

And what could be more fun than a bank run...

 

[Votto]

Support the Article V movement. States, like MA and Romneycare, should take care of their own health insurance needs. They did just fine without Obama.

That way, we have 50 examples of what may or may not work vs. ideas that are so wonderful they are compulsory for all.

Gee, maybe we could bring back the Articles of Confederation to replace the Constitution and Bill of Rights too!

I realize that anything short of a centralized fascist state is considered by people like you to be anarchy.

The nation was founded on the premise of a limited government and Federalism.

Do you mock those goals as well?

How does your vision of 'limited government' differ from anarchy?

"Federalism" replaced the Articles of Confederation.

You right wing turds always fall back on this same mindless bullshit.

Let's deal with FACTS...

I am still awaiting a response. What does limited government mean to you and is it still important today?

Progs amended the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century. Why did they amend it? It was because SCOTUS struck down federal income tax laws at the turn of the 20th century, so they had to add it, among other provisions. On top of that, they created the Fed, which is essentially a centralized bank that a whole list of Founding Fathers warned us against.

Once empowered with all that money and power, they did nothing to curtail spending and now we are seeing the results. Now states do the bidding of the federal government or loose all those federal dollars that they have become dependent upon.

Federalism is dead. The Feds run things now.

And within the federal government, the Executive branch keeps getting more powerful. Now there are a whole army of unelected bureaucrats passing regulations that amount to laws being passed without the Legislative branch. Obama passes Executive Orders to protect illegal immigrants who by the laws on the books should be deported etc.. Now states are being sued by the Federal government for trying to execute federal immigration laws on the books that Obama refuses to uphold.

I have no desire to vote for a tyrant, no matter if it comes from the royal Bush or Clinton family line.

Yea, let's go back to raising revenue through taxes of goods so taxes fall heavily on working Americans, who spent a much higher percentage of their income on goods than rich people. No better way for you right wingers to create your beloved plutocracy.

And what could be more fun than a bank run...

Create a plutocracy?

We live in a plutocracy.

And as Einstein aptly pointed out, insanity is simply trying to do the same thing over and over again in hopes of a different result.

So being such a supporter of democracy as you say you are, how can the US continually have a governing body in Congress with only around a 10% approval rating? Is this even democracy?

Congress should not have that much power to abuse. This is the consequence.